April 09, 2008

Evanston tower shrinks to 38 stories; it's not a pretty sight

I don't mean the tone of the debate over a record-shattering condominium tower in Evanston. I mean the outcome of the debate.

Developers of the project, originally pegged at 49 stories, unveiled a newly-trimmed version Tuesday night, which cuts the height to 38 stories, though the number of condominiums remains the same. But as the Tribune's Deborah Horan reports, the change is not placating opponents of the project who claim there are too many condos already in Evanston's downtown. Also, at least judging by a photo of the architectural model that was published online, the tower is now no thing of beauty on the skyline.

At least the previous version promised to be tall and thin, though it was conspicuously underdetailed and thus looked bland despite its overwhelming height. The new model, by comparison, is short and squat, as if the architect, Chicago's Laurence Booth, were saying to those opponents who argued that Version 1.0 was too tall: "You're making this worse, not better, by objecting to the height."

At 421 feet, the tower would still be the tallest in Chicago's suburbs, topping Helmut Jahn's Oakbrook Terrace Tower by a mere three feet. Further hearings are scheduled. But I propose that we have a hearing now: Is the process in Evanston helping or is it leading to watered-down mediocrity? Are the architects and developers responding creatively to community feedback or are they offering up a bad alternative in the hope that their original plan will look better by comparison?

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Who determined that Evanston needed a focal point as these developers claim? The same square footage was retained -Why? Only for the developers pockets! Why any TIF's? I see no benefit to Evanston. The LEED certification is not as it is the lowest requirement, not a community benefit of size. Let's get real - it all $$$

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Actually, I think the idea of a focal point for the Evanston skyline is a good idea, and this is the block to do it. The problem is, the design isn't working at either ground level or in the sky. Please take a look at what I've written before on this in the blog.

It's interesting that the developers and architects can't seem to make a shorter building look pretty...I think they are deliberately making the building look ugly because the community is fighting them on their original idea.

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Could be. Another problem: The new version of the tower was cooked up in just two weeks. That's not a lot of time to get things right.

The whole tower plan is yet another developer's dream to cash in on the cache of downtown Evanston. What the developers don't get - or maybe what they've gotten and don't care about - is that the Cruel Tower will destroy exactly that ambiance they want to cash in on. Evanston's downtown charm, what's left of it, is exactly centered in small, unique shops doing business within the atmosphere of older buildings in a college town. Already eaten into by loathsome chains like the hypocritical Whole Foods, that ambiance is nearly gone. The tower will simply blot out, both in conception and shadow, what's left. On the other hand, it would be a perfect hideous monument to the crazed greed of developers and the (further) treason of compromised city leaders.

Booth is talented enough to come up with a better design than this. Keeping the units at the same count reveals that the developer did not build into his business plan any reduced unit count as a result of community opposition. That seems foolish given the expected opposition. I'm against this tower in its current and former form. While the current height limit should generally be enforced, if Booth came back with an elegant design no taller than the Chase building, I think it would pass muster with many folks.

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Good comment, Larry, though I disagree that the new tower should match the height of the Chase Building. This is a rare opportunity to create a focal point for the Evanston skyline and you can only do that with a tower of 35 stories or higher. Otherwise, the entire skyline is pancake flat, with no peaks. Larry Booth is capable of doing that. But the developers need to give him the flexibility to do so--perhaps by reducing units so the proportions of the tower aren't so squat.

It wouldn't hurt if people in Evanston would stop with their Luddite "No skyscraper" campaign. Evanston, as I've written before, ain't Mayberry. it's half-city, half-suburb. The real key is how this tower meets the ground, how it responds to the scale of the buildings around it, and what kind of activities it encourages. The opponents' arguments about national chains replacing local mercants and businesses are compelling. The developers need to figure that one out instead of plopping another generic, River North-style tower in downtown Evanston.

I have yet to hear a coherent, much less satisfactory, answer from the developer that addresses the questions of traffic and parking in an area that already suffers from rush-hour congestion. In the meantime: I'm completely repulsed by the new design (and willing to believe that Booth is doing it deliberately as a commentary), and very much opposed to moving the local businesses currently in place. This project is a losing proposition -- for everybody but the developers and whoever they've (probably) paid off in the local government to work on ramming this ugly thing through.

It wouldn't hurt if people in Evanston would stop with their Luddite "No skyscraper" campaign. Evanston, as I've written before, ain't Mayberry. it's half-city, half-suburb. The real key is how this tower meets the ground, how it responds to the scale of the buildings around it, and what kind of activities it encourages.

********

The Chase Building is an eyesore - as is the fabulously failed Sherman Platz - testimonies to the lack of thoughtfulness and/or collusion of the planning commission, architects, and city "fathers and mothers." They all "meet the ground," but very badly.

When is a skyscraper, justified merely for being a skyscraper in Chicago, Evanston, or Mayberry? Many cities and towns, considered enlightened by some, rather than "Luddite," have height restrictions that are beneficial to their general environment. (Ever been to Santa Barbara, Blair? Or Charleston?) Is Evanston, just because of it proximity to Trump's Strumpet, to be blighted with yet another high rise condominium? Or does Sherman Plaza justify yet another Sherman Plaza? And that's what we're talking about here, Blair: this isn't architecture qua art, no lofty statement, but high rise qua $$$$. There's no desire to make Evanston better in this, only to profit, wrapping the package in sanctimony.

Where is this madness for "skyscrapers" coming from? A city's heart or "center," for God's sake, need not, should not be a mere multi-storied building. It certainly isn't that in most places in Europe. To my knowledge, Evanston, which is not Chicago, has not yet conceived a desire to become Babel.

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Wake up and smell the coffee, George. Evanston is near Lake Michigan. High-rises create lake views. And they create density. Density saves energy. It fights sprawl. You're for those things, right? Evanston isn't Santa Barbara or Charleston. It crossed that bridge long ago. The issue here is how to marry profits and the public good, not to lurch back nostalgically to the past.

"This is a rare opportunity to create a focal point for the Evanston skyline and you can only do that with a tower of 35 stories or higher. Otherwise, the entire skyline is pancake flat, with no peaks. Larry Booth is capable of doing that. But the developers need to give him the flexibility to do so--perhaps by reducing units so the proportions of the tower aren't so squat."

Washington DC has a mandate no buildings taller than the U.S. Capital. Peaks and massing alone do not make a great skyline.

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Of course, peaks and massing alone don't make a great skyline. Great artistry does that. But comparing Washington, D.C. to Evanston is ludicrous. Washington is a cermonial city where national symbols trump economic reality. Thus, they have the height limit and skyscrapers are exiled to Virginia across the Potomac. Chicago and Evanston are utilitarian cities, which means they have to figure out how to make art of commerce. It's not easy. But ignoring that reality won't make things any easier.

Gee! I never thought of myself as a Luddite, or that buildings categorized as skyscrapers were the ultimate expression of architectural "progress", or that Evanston "needs" a vertical focal point.

It is clear that Evanston does not need additional condo's downtown.

It is clear that Evanston does need to continue to offer office space for local businesses and to offer retail space for local businesses (versus "big box" stores that take money out of the local community economy).

It also is clear that Evanston should have a building that supplies those needs while maintaining the current aesthetic that is the DEFINING quality of Evanston and which attracts people to Evanston.

That building could be a few stories in height. And it could have rich architectural detail at the ground level too.

There is no need to build a precast concrete, glass slabbed, monolithic structure.

The politics of this is clearly the wants of the people who live in Evanston versus a developer who does not live here and is, after all, a businessman whose primary motivation is making money...and/or generating tax losses for his financiers....

The developer needs to be a little self self centered and consider that his work will outlive him, literally, and affect not only his own profits and his financiers, but the quality of life of thousands of people, some of who have yet to be born.

Richard Katz

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Couldn't agree more, Richard, that the developer needs to address public benefits and the public good. Please read my previous comments today about activities at the street level; all that is right.

But I part company with you and other opponents on the skyline issue. A tall tower, if done well, has the ability to create a new symbol for Evanston--something inspiring, something memorable, something transformative. The key words are: "if done well." Right now, this design doesn't meet that standard and appears to be getting worse.

No, density doesn't always save energy. It creates heat islands, which tend to use more energy for air conditioning.

Evanston used to be a special and unique place. Does a project like this really enhance what is special? In the mid 1970's concerned citizens rose up in protest against the proposed Wes Cor project, and it didn't happen.

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: True, density creates heat islands, but heat islands can be ameliorated with green roofs and other green measures. The point is that density saves energy because it encourages people to walk and take transit rather than driving. And tall buildings promote density.

This relates to your second point: How can Evanston allow more skyscrapers and still maintain its special sense of place. Evanston is not Chicago. Nor should it be. But skyscrapers are a part of Evanston, like it or not. I don't think that freezing Evanston in time--or retreating into the past--is the answer.

Think of the movie theaters, bookstore and high-rises on the west end of downtown Evanston. They have brought new dynamism (and revenue, I suspect) to downtown. Even if you don't like the in-your-face orange balconies on one of the towers (I don't, either), these projects reveal that new development, if done properly, can contribute to the quality of life.

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Wake up and smell the coffee, George. Evanston is near Lake Michigan. High-rises create lake views. And they create density. Density saves energy. It fights sprawl. You're for those things, right? Evanston isn't Santa Barbara or Charleston. It crossed that bridge long ago. The issue here is how to marry profits and the public good, not to lurch back nostalgically to the past.

I don't follow your reasoning, Blair. First of all Charleston and Santa Barbara are both by water and won't cave to developers to create sea "views" for wealthy condominium -ites. Second, Evanston can't sprawl: it has no place to go in any direction beyond its current borders. Third, the downtown condos are not - and this one is not - created for the "general good" but for the characterless, featureless retired wealthy and their small dogs who want to buy into "Evanston." The kind of folks that are (by necessity) involved in "sprawl," the kind will never be served by such high end condos - can't pay to live there. Fourth, Evanston is in a bad way financially and the strain that such density will create on resources will be immense - not to mention the congestion that will increase in an already congested downtown. (Remember we're talking about the city giving away money to the developers here.) This building will never be classed as other than a high end condo with high end chain stores on the ground floor: poorly patronized store fronts like the Levi's store and Cereality (which is out of business) for lack of character. All this is for the "general good?"

Some of your reasoning is idealistic and that's good, but to think that skyscrapers are panaceas for urban problems, etc. for Evanston is a statement more of a true believer rather than a reasonable one. (I refuse here to resort to metaphors involving high rises,head in the clouds, etc.) We're not talking about "turning back the clock" or "lurching back nostalgically to the past." Rather, we're simply asking for more creativity and inventiveness - and yes, a great committment to the public good FOR NOW AND FOR THE FUTURE than we're accustomed to getting around here. Surely we should be able to find some creative architectural conceptualizing "out of the box" of the skyscrapers?

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Thanks for those comments. I'm going to have to attend to my day job and write a story for the Sunday paper. But I'll get back to you.

Blair, your comments regarding the "need" for a focal point in the Evanston skyline are the words of someone who has not grown up in nor lived in Evanston. The point that because it is "half-city, half-suburb" is irrelevant. As an Evanstonian who has spent all but the last 2 years of his life living there, you do not seem to grasp the charm of Evanston to those who reside in the city itself. Half-city and half-suburb does not mean we need to create a skyline representative of a much larger city. The tower is justifiably being vilified by the community because is it pure excess...the downtown Evanston area has become more chain stores and less local, owner-operated businesses but has been balanced with positive growth around the Dempster-Chicago, Main-Chicago and Central Street shopping districts. By dropping another huge building into downtown, directly across from the enormous Sherman Ave Plaza development (and less than a block from Optima Horizons, which went through the same scaling back process a few years ago), Evanston would see a drastic change in the atmosphere downtown and the scenery itself - the previously mentioned canyon effect which is incongruent with Evanston's authentic, genuine quality. If you were from Evanston and had a deep connection to it, you would understand. The tower idea needs to be shot down!!!

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Thanks, Henry. I'm afraid that branding me a clueless outsider won't work. True, I don't live in Evanston, but I do live close by and have spent a lot of time in downtown Evanston. So I'm speaking from experience, not theory.

If you and other opponents of this project want a moratorium on downtown high-rises, then I think you should be honest and say so. I'll continue to critique the plans in a constructive fashion.

If this skyscraper is to be the focal point of downtown Evanston, why is it that the city and developer refuse to put it on hold for a little while and include it in their new downtown plan? It seems to me that if we want to have whatever is built on this block become some type of symbol for Evanston the city should look at the plan for downtown as a whole rather than allow the main attraction to be built without the consideration of anything else around it.

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Excellent point. Couldn't agree more. Evanston should do this on its own timetable, not the developer's timetable. But that shouldn't mean waiting forever to render a decision.

Downtown Evanston is the right place to encourage density. It is served by numerous El and Metra stops, it has a walkable downtown, and is close to very marketable amenities - Northwestern and the Lake. If density is to be encouraged, this is the right place.

However, it is in direct competition with Old Orchard with abundant free parking, numerous national chain outlets, and such. How does Evanston distinguish itself in the marketplace? By encouraging its uniqueness. That means local stores and local vendors.

The biggest problem I have with the tower project - other than it is ugly and poorly designed - is that the city government has completely rolled over to developers. It is a replay (except for the illegal secret council meeting) of the fiasco with Sherman Plaza. The developer promised a percentage of low-income housing with space for local merchants. Council approved. Once that letter was signed, the developer found they couldn't possibly afford the low-income portion and scrapped. Council said, Oh, golly OK. The current city government reminds me of nothing more than small town rubes being scammed by the big city slicker.

So, in my ideal world, the city council (such as it is) would require reasonable rent storefronts (even if Disney-fied) for local merchants, a specified percentage of low to moderate-income units, a comprehensive plan for traffic and parking, a significant contribution to public space, and - since a new high rise will require additions to fire response capabilities - the developer foot the bill for that expense. AND they enforce those requirements. Having a true world class design is a non-negotiable.

On my way to the train, I walk by the tower on Washington just west of DesPlaines and think, "What a cool building." That response should be required for Evanstonians to approve new construction.

Thanks, Blair, for the give and take. Forums are important to air views and this has been useful.

No need to respond or post this.

- 30 -

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Actually, I have to respond. Thank YOU! This sort of give and take is exactly what I was hoping for when I expresed the goal that this blog would be, above all, a forum for pointed but civil debate about design. Let's keep the debate going. But for now, at least, I have to write.

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: Thanks, Henry. I'm afraid that branding me a clueless outsider won't work. True, I don't live in Evanston, but I do live close by and have spent a lot of time in downtown Evanston. So I'm speaking from experience, not theory.

If you and other opponents of this project want a moratorium on downtown high-rises, then I think you should be honest and say so. I'll continue to critique the plans in a constructive fashion. And other opponents of skyscrapers: When did the pure excess begin? With the first office towers
-------------
Blair, my point is not to "brand you a clueless outsider," rather to highlight that the residents of the city are not clamoring for another high-rise to crowd the downtown area. Quantifying the emotional connection a community has to its architecture and overall feel is difficult, yet this project seems to have pushed many residents into action -- including those who may have remained silent during previous developer battles, such as Optima Horizons). The link to one's community is more than dollars and cents, it is an emotional one. The overall growth of Evanston has been positive, but as previous comments reflect, this project shows a lack of vision for the effect on Evanston as a whole - not just the street to the sky on that block.

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: No argument there. The design had better get better. That's where this debate started this morning and that's where I'm ending it.

The current skyscraper discussion gets back to a very basic issue in Evanston - Zoning. There have been changes in zoning throughout the city that increase building height and density. These changes have not come as a result of citizens’ demand. I assume they have come about because of 1) the governments demand for more tax dollars to spend and 2) developers. I think that Evanston needs to reevaluate what the citizens want Evanston to be. If the current Elected and non-elected officials are not acting per the wishes of the citizens then they should be replaced.

Lest you think everyone from Evanston agrees with some of the hyperbole spouted here, I do agree that a tall tower belongs on this site; something closer to the +/-50 story proposal than this compromise.
Now, I'm not "from" from Evanston like, I suspect, many of these opposers. I've only lived there for 7 years, and lived close enough to it during the '90s that I saw it for the depressed ghost town that it was. I also understand the ways of Capitalism, Constitutional Republics, and property rights; things I think many old-timer Evanstonians have difficulty accepting.
To them: I concede and heartily agree that granting public money to this private development is foolish, and nearly criminal given the city's finances. But you must accept that Evanston is a City (capital 'C'). It has been almost since its inception as it fought off Chicago's advances to absorb it. It did so by establishing its own sense of place and by building a robust self-sustaining economy. So, to further establish a keen sense of place, the City should and must continue to strengthen its core and build with distinction. (you got me there, this Booth design is not it) Yes, Evanston could use more office space; and yes, large retail chains are more likely to rent in this new building; but if there is demand - real demand - to have these small, unique business stay in the downtown, then give them a reason to stay! Most of those charming stores look awful dead to me. What is the benefit are these businesses; for the owners and patrons to exchange goods and services, or for you all and your feelings of superiority at having such a cute downtown?
But this brings me to my real problem with the opposition: the overwhelming NIMBY-ism, smug entitlement, and near-xenophobia at the idea of 'outsiders' wanting to come in and have their piece of Evanston. Way to foster a sense of community there. Great way to advertise your progressive attitude and celebration of diversity! I'm humbled at your ability to give fair hearing to a contradictory viewpoint.
Address the City Council with factual and fair criticism of this proposal (poor design, no public money, zoning tradeoffs) but if you can't keep your angry, prejudiced motivations under control, I and the 'sane' residents will want this approved just to spite you all.

There have been many questions regarding this specific proposal starting with the dubious way it was first introduced to the City behind closed doors. I also remember the hole in the ground that occupied downtown for years while the developer who is proposing the new project fumbled his financing for Sherman Plaza. I've got to say that history doesn't lend itself to giving the plan's proponents any benefit of the doubt as to their motives.

We've let a handful of developers ram their wishes down the city's throats, so let's take some control back. I feel the lack of process is as much a problem as the project itself. So if the end result is getting uglier yet the concept of a skyscraper is so key to the future of the City, why not reject this proposal and open up the design process for an iconic structure in the form of an open-call competition? In light of the eyesores that have been foisted on the city, at least we might end up with an inspiring structure.

I have to say that from an outsiders perspective, Evanston is a pretty neat place to go to these days. I think that bringing in more housing has had a positive transformative pull on the city. There's more retail, restaurants and things to do compared to just 10 years ago. The area has become a lovely place to walk and contrary to popular belief, all the new activity has made Evanston unique amongst Chicago suburbs.

But maybe you want to keep people like me away. If that's your goal by all means, protect, protect, protect your quaint town.

----

in regards to this building creating a "heat island". Yes, without proper treatment, this building could create an uptick in the immediate area but not as much as 200 single family homes, driveways and the extra roads to accomodate those homes would create.

I was born in Evanston, actually St. Francis Hospital and live miles away now. But my concern for and interest in the city remains high. Evanston, whether half city or not really does have an architectural character that does not equate with such a tall building. Half the proposed site of 38 floors would sound like more of a North Shore version of a high rise. Anything more would be a blight on the skyline or cityscape. Such a building would work for higher density and good land use planning and energy efficiency. Don't mock the area's appearance, work with it.

Sorry Blair, but whether you think we are Luddites or no, Evanston does not need a towering fiasco, whether it's 50 or 40 stories. Do you recall when the new Library was built? How everyone praised it for it's Prairie-style looks and how well that works in a community like Evanston? Now it's all skyscrapers, skyscrapers, skyscrapers. And what do they add? Congestion and traffic. Have they brought down property taxes in Evanston? I would love to hear from anyone in Evanston whose property taxes have gone down in the past 8 years. And I agree with the folks above who all lament the lack of support small businesses recieve from both the city council and the chamber of commerce. It seems the city is oblivious to the idea that it's the small businesses that make Evanston different from, say, Old Orchard, or Northbrook court. And finally, take a look at all the empty retail space in downtown Evanston and try to sell that that as a measure of a successful and vibrant downtown. No, we do not need another eyesore in downtown Evanston.

BLAIR KAMIN RESPONDS: I don't think you need an eyesore, either. I think you need a beautifully-designed tower that would add life to the street and vitality to what is now an uninspired skyline. How on Earth could you be against that?

george: You need to remember that Santa Barbara came with ready-made skyscrapers for ocean views.
They're called mountains & people build their houses on the sides of those mountains not only for the view, but for the cool breezes that blow off of the ocean from the cold California Current which ameliorate the heat of those hot California summers.

Spare me the nonsense about the "charm" of Evanston. It is true that the residential areas outside of downtown contain many beautiful homes and are in fact "charming". But Old Orchard killed downtown years ago. The condo's were a godsend to downtown.

Please also spare me the platitudes about local merchants "keeping money in the community". Where do most of the employees of the "souless chains" get their employees? Evanston. Who gets its share of the sales taxes they generate? Evanston. It is a falacy that The Stars Our Destination, the now closed science fiction book store on Main Street, was any better for the community than Barnes and Noble or Borders.

What I will agree with is that the loss of office space is significant. Local retail can be replaced with national, but service providers such as doctors and dentists cannot. I would like to see any new building include office space and not just retail.

"I think you need a beautifully-designed tower that would add life to the street and vitality to what is now an uninspired skyline. How on Earth could you be against that?"

I very much appreciate the conversation that you have started and been thoughtful enough to moderate here. Having said that, I must also say that I don't live in a skyline; I live, walk, and drive at street level. Adding "life to the street"? The road surface on Church Street is already crumbling to the point of damaging cars, the sidewalks on Church are shadowed and largely treeless, and the construction + residential traffic generated by the tower will only make these problems worse. Thanks, but no thanks. If I had wanted a view of skyscrapers, I'd have moved to the Loop years ago. Residential Evanston's surviving tree canopy is "inspiring" skyline enough.

Without knowing local codes in depth, here's what I'd do if I were the developer. I wrote these in haste.

1. Incorporate modified New York-style setback regulations. That would take care of massing and building density issues.

2. Dramatically reduce the number of parking stalls, be it based on the number of units or square footage, allow no ancillary parking and redevelop the garage itself to below grade. When people talk of "density," the number of cars a building may have is what people really mean. No one's ever complained about a sidewalk having too many people or a street with too many bicyclists.

3. Provide Evanston will a truly conservation friendly, LEED Gold certified tower. This is a HUGE marketing point in other cities.

4. Try to add another 10 feet of sidewalk space to allow for additional planters and bike racks.

5. Redraw the first floor to incorporate smaller retail spaces, thereby attracting more mom and pop retailers instead of the typical Walgreens/CVS/Borders. Anything more than 500 sq. ft. per shop is too much.

The real issue isn't height or density - it's that a sense of style and culture is being lost. Chicagoans have pride in their architecture, while we Evanstonians are getting nothing but Mussolini-style blocky condos, rusting orange balconies and far too many empty shells from abandoned retail spaces resulting from design with a half-life of 5 years.

Letting committees make design changes over and over can have no other effect but mediocrity. It removes any traces of the inspiration and distinction that other commenters here are yearning for.

If any public money must be spent, use it to set up a design contest, pick a winner and build it as designed - then I'd consider my tax money well spent for 'cultural reasons'.

I am writing this letter to inform you of my support for the proposed Fountain Square Tower. At a height of 523’, this tower could become a new landmark for downtown Evanston.

I had the opportunity to attend the plan commission meeting on March 17th, and speak in favor of this development. As you know, many residents are opposed to this tower, stating that the building is too tall and will destroy the character of the city. I disagree with this statement and counter that new developments such as this will in fact enhance the character. This is not the Evanston of 1900, the sleepy college town that didn’t serve liquor. It’s 2008. Evanston isn’t Mayberry, nor should it be. Evanston has had a building over 100’ since the 1920’s and it’s had a tower over 200’ since the 1970’s.

Several questions arose about the public benefit of this development. Here’s one that wasn’t included in comments made: The sales tax within the entire metropolitan region has just been increased to supplement the RTA. Evanston is served by the CTA, Metra and Pace. Evanston needs to utilize the TOD (transit oriented development) possibilities of the Davis Street Station with density. I’m aware that several developments have recently been developed in the area, but surely it can sustain more. Density along this and other transit stations can help prevent any further tax increases. Not for just Evanston, but for the region. Chicago has just increased its Real Estate Transfer Tax to help subsidize CTA pensions. That increase wasn’t required in Evanston which has abundant service.

At last weeks meeting a question was raised by one of the commissioners: What other suburban areas similar to Evanston had buildings of such substantial height? At the time the developers were unable to answer, so I’ve done my own research.

It was mentioned in some comments that the current Fountain Square Building should be renovated instead. I must say that the majority of buildings existing on the site are ugly. If they were renovated, some tenants would still be displaced during this period. If the commissioners force the developers to reduce the height of the tower, those tenants will sill be displaced during construction. Also, the tall and thin movement seems to be the rave, and if you force the developers to reduce the height, that just means the development will grow wider. When you sit on a bag of sand it spreads. This has already happened in developments such as Sherman Plaza (276’) and Optima Horizons (162’). These building are short, squat and have created a wall effect. I don’t believe that this is the effect you want.

I hope that you will consider the approval of the proposal at 708 Church Street.

As for those who speak of Washington, DC, yes it's a very livable and light city, but one cannot rent a one bedroom apt for less than 1500 dollars. Nobody can build the housing that the city needs because the height limit also limits the number of units per land parcel.

I lived there for 12 years and let me tell you; block after block of buildings with their front walls flush to the sidewalk is pretty horrifying too. Just one block of 9 story walls after another. Wall after wall after wall. Short thick buildings with no steps back from teh street.

A bit of well planned increased density would be a great thing in Washington, DC.

Bad design is bad design, no matter the height.

And if you wanna look at a suburb with a skyline, look south to St Louis and the city of Clayton.

I support development if it is done with a solid eye to public and long-term future benefit. Incorporating increased retail opportunity and professional office space should not be a deal-breaker on this project--I think the response of lopping off 11 stories from the original plan is extremely short-sighted and, honestly, cowardly.

One point I would make in response to the building height comparison list posted by Mr. Adams is missing one vitally important distinction--Evanston is very tightly contained within less than 8 square miles of territory. We have nowhere to expand but vertically. All the more reason to ensure that any new development will be beautiful for the long-haul, not simply "in line" with current trends.

Speaking of the future--how will future development be hampered when we need to tear down the "old" 49-story condo building in 75-100 years? Let's make sure we get it right the first time!

I now this is off topic, but I am trying to find some info about the Main Street-Chicago Avenue development (http://www.katzcondos.com/mainstreet/index.html) that has apparently not started on time. Any news on this? The empty lot is an eyesore. The Developer should be made to clean it up.

The people who have pushed hardest for this skyscraper have been outsiders, except for the alderwoman who was defeated. I say let the outsiders have the skyscraper in their ward. Keep it out of the first. Thank you.